Introduction

The higher education sector in Western Europe, North America, and Australia has undergone significant transformations over the past few decades. The neoliberal global movement in higher education policy has led to a decrease in public funding and increased reliance on competence-based funding, the introduction of new public management models, the rise of audit culture, rankings, and metrics, as well as the merging of curricula and university units. These trends are widely discussed within the framework of critical university studies (e.g. Ginsberg, 2012). We have witnessed the emergence of the 'market-oriented' or 'pragmatic' university, characterised by a focus on speed and efficiency, which has led to the abandonment of Humboldtian ideals (Elmgren, Forsberg & Geschwind, 2016).

Reforms in higher education have brought changes to the roles and functions of higher education institutions, as universities are increasingly expected to respond to the evolving needs of students, employers, industry, and regions (Kwiek & Antonowicz, 2014). The conflicting demands placed on academics are pushing universities and academic professionals into a state of 'mission overload' (Jongbloed et al., 2008).

Reforms in university governance have reshaped the relationship between universities and academic professionals, weakening academic self-governance while increasing the power of administrative staff (Ginsberg, 2012; Musselin, 2013). It is evident that the academic labour market has become increasingly precarious, competitive, and stratified in terms of reputation, salaries, and working conditions (Pechar & Andres, 2015).

In many countries, career advancement in academia has traditionally followed a tenure track model, characterised by a predictable, linear, and upward career trajectory. However, an increasing number of university positions today are fixed-term, externally funded, and project-based. The academic labour market operates according to a 'winner-takes-all' principle, where academic professionals compete for scarce resources (Kwiek & Antonowicz, 2014). This highly competitive and precarious system exacerbates inequalities among academic staff, including gender-based disparities (Ooms, Werker & Hopp, 2019). The contradictory demands and multiple work roles, combined with high workloads and low job security—particularly among junior researchers—can lead to job dissatisfaction, elevated stress levels, and mental health issues, as highlighted by several studies (Mark & Smith, 2012)

Similar trends can be observed in the Estonian higher education sector (Aavik, 2018; Jõgi, Ümarik & Oder, 2020). Developments in Estonian universities are driven by the neoliberal global agenda. Over the past decade, Estonian universities have undergone several simultaneous reforms and structural changes, including the reorganisation of university units, an increasing push for internationalisation, and the introduction of the tenure track system, to name just a few.

This paper focuses on exploring the implementation of the tenure track system in one Estonian university during its initial phase. Research across various educational sectors has shown that many educational reform efforts have either failed, remained superficial, or failed to achieve the expected long-term effects (Sahlberg, 2010), often resulting in unintended consequences. The `unintended consequences` resulting from transformative changes at the universities and leading to numerous rather negative consequences that go beyond the explicit intentions of the policymakers are widely discussed (e.g. Krücken, 2014).

By analysing the early stages of tenure track implementation, this study aims to highlight some of its anticipated impacts on university culture, academic identities, and relationships within academia. The central research questions are: (1) How do academic staff perceive and respond to the tenure track reform? (2) What university-level changes is the tenure track reform triggering?

Methods This study is informed by the theoretical-methodological framework of institutional ethnography (Rankin, 2017). Institutional ethnography focuses on examining how social relations are mediated through text. In other words, to understand people's actions within institutional contexts, it analyses the texts that shape their actions. Institutional ethnography seeks to reveal how everyday practices at the micro level are linked to systemic processes at the meso level, through which power relations are reproduced. Therefore, we can assume that teaching and learning practices at the university are also shaped by the texts that frame them, including university regulations on study organisation and curriculum texts, which in turn reflect broader trends in higher education. The introduction of the tenure track system has involved a redefinition of roles, requirements, and work profiles for academic staff at different career stages. This analysis focuses on the interplay between the discourses in regulatory documents and the perceptions and reactions of academics themselves. The paper is based on an analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with 20 academic staff members from one Estonian university, alongside an analysis of university documents. To capture personal meanings, perceptions, and the logic behind reactions, a qualitative semi-structured interview approach was chosen for data collection. The sample of interview respondents was selected using a randomised sampling strategy, ensuring representation from different academic units. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Drawing inspiration from institutional ethnography, which suggests that institutional texts shape social relations and everyday practices, our analytical focus was on how personal narratives about identity, work roles, and the changing university environment in the context of the tenure reform intersect with the discourse embedded in university documents and regulations. The thematic analysis of university documents examined how they presented the aims of the tenure track reform and the roles and responsibilities of academic staff. In the final phase of analysis, personal narratives were juxtaposed with the perspectives conveyed in regulatory documents.

Preliminary results In university documents, the introduction of the new career model, also referred to as the tenure track reform, has been justified by the need to enhance scientific quality and adopt a more elitist approach to hiring professors. Compared to the previous career advancement system, in which the position of professor was accessible to a wider range of academic staff who met the criteria, the new system limits the number of tenure track positions available over the next years, while offering more support and research funding. Another key change introduced by the new career model is the reduction of lecturers’ workloads, aimed at supporting those who choose to enter into the highly competitive tenure track system. In contrast, the docents´ teaching loads were increased as part of the reform. Interviews with academic staff during the early phase of the reform revealed diverse perceptions and reactions. Some interviewees felt that the reform have no immediate impact on them or would only affect them in the future. However, those in docent positions expressed stronger feelings about the reform, many perceiving it as a career dead end or a trap. This led to resistance, demotivation, or, alternatively, an acceptance of the situation and a shift in focus towards teaching, as opportunities for pursuing a research career were effectively curtailed. One of the key implications of the reform appears to be a rise in competitiveness within the university, alongside increasing inequalities in the academic environment.

References Aavik, K. (2018). Crafting neoliberal futures in the strategic plans of Estonian universities. Futures, 111,148-158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.003. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Elmgren, M.; Forsberg, E., & Geschwind, L. (2016). Life and work in academia, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1-4, 34001, DOI: 10.3402/nstep.v2.34001 Ginsberg, B. (2011). The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-administrative University and Why It Matters. Oxford University Press. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, J. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections,interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303–324. Jõgi, L.; Ümarik, M.; Oder, T. (2020). The professional identity and teaching practice of academics in the context of change at the university. In: Larissa Jõgi, Meril Ümarik, Kai Pata (Ed.). Teaching and Learning at the University: Practices and Transformations (93−110). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Krücken, G. (2014). Higher education reforms and unintended consequences: a research agenda. Studies in Higher Education, 39(8), 1439–1450, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.949539 Kwiek, M.; Antonowicz, D. (2014). The Changing Paths in Academic Careers in European Universities: Minor Steps and Major Milestones. In: Tatiana Fumasoli, Gaele Goastellec, Barbara M. Kehm (Eds.). Academic Work and Careers in Europe: Trends, Challenges, Perspectives.Chapter: The Changing Paths in Academic Careers in European Universities: Minor Steps and Major, Milestones Publisher: Springer. Mark, G.; Smith, A. P. (2012). Effects of occupational stress, job characteristics, coping, and attributional style on the mental health and job satisfaction of university employees. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 25(1), 63-78. Musselin, C. (2013). Redefinition of the relationships between the academics and their universities. Higher Education, 65, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9579-3. Ooms, W.; Werker, C.; Hopp, C. (2019). Moving up the ladder: heterogeneity influencing academic careers through research orientation, gender, and mentors, Studies in Higher Education, 44(7), 1268-1289, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1434617 Pechar, H; Andres, L. (2015). Academic Careers in Comparative Perspective. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 26-30, Oxford, Elsevier. Rankin, J. (2017). Conducting Analysis in Institutional Ethnography: Analytical Work Prior to Commencing Data Collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917734484 Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2